Since I am working on this one let me thank both Roberto and Doyle
I don't thing Roberto was trying to dis our guideline though. Just give us
a data point that we could use to 'see' what our numbers meant in real life.
This will definitely need a tool I think - and I am on the trail of some
work on several fronts that may give us the rules. In the end we will have
to create some 'line' that is good enough. Like the rule for ramps, it
won't be good enough for everyone but it will be pretty good for most. And
like the ramp angle, if we don't have a specific number or line or way to
measure - it is just drives people crazy who are trying to conform. "Don't
make the ramp too steep but I'm not going to tell you what is too steep".
In the end the ramps almost always end up too steep without a number because
you don't realize how hard it is to get up an incline unless you are in a
wheelchair. And the ramp builders almost never are. Ditto here.
So thanks Roberto. And wish us good luck
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Doyle
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 11:48 PM
To: Roberto Castaldo; w3c-wai-eo@w3.org; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: WCAG Logos are not WCAG compliant?
My response follows Roberto's -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Castaldo" <r.castaldo@iol.it>
To: <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:48 AM
Subject: WCAG Logos are not WCAG compliant?
>
> Hi folks,
>
> reading a message on webaccessibile@itlists.org mailing list, I found
this:
> Andrea Martinez wrote that he tested the WCAG conformance logos with
> http://www.juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.asp, and the response
is
> "strange":
>
> - Red text "AAA"
> Background: #ffce63
> Foreground: #8C0000
>
> The difference in brightness between the two colours is sufficient. The
> threshold is 125, and the result of the foreground and background colours
is
> 166.
>
> The difference in colour between the two colours is not sufficient. The
> threshold is 500, and the result of the foreground and background colours
is
> 420. Whilst the colour difference doesn't comply with the W3C specified
> range, it does comply with the range used by Hewlett Packard. Hewlett
> Packard recommends a colour difference limit of 400.
>
>
> - Grey Text "WCAG 1.0"
> Background: #ffce63
> Foreground: #39394A
>
> The difference in brightness between the two colours is sufficient. The
> threshold is 125, and the result of the foreground and background colours
is
> 149.
>
> The difference in colour between the two colours is not sufficient. The
> threshold is 500, and the result of the foreground and background colours
is
> 372.
>
>
> Maybe this is the same for all W3C logos, isn't it? Should we do
something?
>
> My best regards,
>
> Roberto Castaldo
Hi Roberto and Listers -
I am not totally sure which of the W3C logos were tested by Andrea Martinez
(per your message above) but I looked at the following publically available
logos [1]. I did nto run them through Juicy Studio's alogrithm but found no
issue for myself, personally. That, of course, does not mean someone else
would not have an issue related to their specific challenge related to color
deficiency. I would agree that the "greyed-out" lettering in some of the
logos could be of darker contrast for some users. TheCSS Validator Logo
would likely pass Juicy Studio and HP for sure.
It's my opinion as well, that no algorithm (Juicy Studio's, HP's, etc.) is
going to meet the potential need of every user. At some point there needs
to be a set standard by which developers can determine if their background
and foreground allow a user to determine the content that is presented over
a background. Plus, if a user is required to actually identify or see a
color - that presents a whole different set of circumstances. In the W3C
Logo case, I assume the check marks in some of the logos are red but all I
can tell is that they are check marks.
Also, I do not believe (to the best of my knowledge) that the working group
has finalized a particular algorithm with regard to color and contrast
issues. I know Juicy Studio was and has been looked at as a potential
option.
[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/logo-usage-20000308.html#public-logos
My thoughts -
Doyle Burnett
> -----------------------------------
> www.Webaccessibile.Org coordinator
> IWA/HWG Member
> rcastaldo@webaccessibile.org
> r.castaldo@iol.it
> Mobile 348 3700161
> Icq 178709294
> -----------------------------------
>